Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-08-Speech-3-628-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110608.25.3-628-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, the European Arrest Warrant has become one of the most successful instruments on mutual recognition adopted within the European Union. Therefore, I am very thankful to you for having initiated this debate.
Concerns have been expressed that a negative decision on a European Arrest Warrant does not automatically lead to a deletion of the corresponding alert in the Schengen Information System. However, the SIS alert is a means of transmission of the European Arrest Warrant. Ultimately, it is only the issuing authority that has entered an alert that can withdraw it.
In cases where a Member State refuses, following judicial proceedings, to execute a European Arrest Warrant, the person in question will be released. If the refusal to execute the European Arrest Warrant is final, it is clear that the person can no longer be arrested in that Member State as a result of the instrument. However, any refusal to execute a European Arrest Warrant does not invalidate it. It remains a valid title for the arrest of the person concerned in the issuing Member State and indeed in any other Member State. This has nothing to do with the European Arrest Warrant system as such and is, for example, also the case under the extradition system.
Finally, regarding prison conditions, these may, of course, be open to improvement in some cases, but this is not a topic which is specific to the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant. It is the responsibility of the authorities of individual Member States to ensure that prison conditions are up to standard, regardless of whether persons have been surrendered from other Member States or not.
The Council has devoted a great deal of attention and energy to this issue, not least through a mutual peer evaluation of the practical application of this instrument which has been carried out in all Member States over a period of three years. The advantages of the European Arrest Warrant by far outweigh any possible inconveniences. Thanks to the EAW, the Union has managed to reduce surrender times considerably, in many cases from one or two years to only one or two months. The previous extradition system was cumbersome and no longer fit for purpose in the modern world of open borders and serious and organised cross-border crimes.
On the issue of proportionality, whilst there have been some cases of minor importance for which a European Arrest Warrant was issued, it is ultimately a matter for the issuing authority in each Member State to decide for which offences it wants to launch the proceedings. This is a result of the fact that, unlike extradition, the European Arrest Warrant is a fully judicial system. A European Arrest Warrant is always based on a judicial decision in the issuing state and the decision on whether or not to issue an EAW is for the national judicial authority. If there is a proportionality problem, it is not caused by the instrument or by the EAW framework decision; it is rather the result of the criminal justice policies in individual Member States. The Council has been quite clear that in cases where preventive detention is inappropriate, the European Arrest Warrant should not be used.
The Council has also called on the instrument’s practitioners to consider and seek advice on the use of alternatives to the European Arrest Warrant. Taking into account the overall efficiency of criminal proceedings, these alternatives could include using the less coercive instruments of mutual legal assistance where possible, using video-conferencing for suspects, convoking someone for appearance before a judge by means of a summons, using the Schengen Information System to establish the place of residence of a suspect, or the use of the framework decision on the mutual recognition of financial penalties.
However, such assessments should always be made by the issuing authority. The European Arrest Warrants are issued in relation to prosecutions or final convictions in the issuing state. These judicial decisions are based on the material available to the judge or prosecutor in the issuing state.
Furthermore, we should not ignore the victims. In most cases, the victims of the offence are in the issuing state, not in the executing state, so by delaying the trial and examination of the case, the rights of victims are also being undermined. Justice delayed is justice denied, not only for suspects but also for victims. It is also in the interest of the victims to have a speedy trial so that their rights are respected. The Council intends to adopt a road map proposed by the Hungarian Presidency to strengthen these rights. The solution to the proportionality principle cannot therefore be that we change the fundamentals of the well-functioning European Arrest Warrant system, which has radically improved the prior extradition system.
Regarding the rights of the defence, I would like first to remark that, unlike extradition, the European Arrest Warrant is a fully judicial system which, in itself, is already a major guarantee. A European Arrest Warrant is always based on a judicial decision in the issuing state and can be executed in the executing state only through a judicial decision. The person will always be able to fully exercise his defence rights in the issuing Member State where the trial on the merits of the case takes place. This is fully in compliance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
That does not imply that the person against whom a European Arrest Warrant has been issued is not, and should not, be able to exercise any rights in the executing state. Directive 2010/64 of 20 October 2010 provides for the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and also applies in the execution of the European Arrest Warrant.
Furthermore, we welcome the fact that a recent Commission proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right to information in criminal proceedings provides for the right to written information in European Arrest Warrant proceedings."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples